|
I personally think the "change" has more to do with GMing style than the rules expansion. to me, the new rules are a net positive, we lost some creativity but got some nice rules for people to understand. The new combat (3rd ed style) was likewise better, more robust, even on a grid. The thing people "lost" was the impartial referee type, who prided himself on DESIGNING not DIRECTING; the older players might understand this but the newer players expect GM's to do this to a degree. I'm sadly a newer gamer in the sense that I'm not the impartial designer, my players hate those GM's; they call them reactionary or punisher GM's. They also have not been playing as long as me to see the magic of leaving the GM creativity in the design and playing the game as an impartial ref their to let them experience the world. The magic was left to the players in the old school GM's, they didn't fudge rolls for the players or the monsters, that was the trust. Now people can get butt-hurt over "the GM killed my PC" because it was entirely in the GM's arsenal to save them, or not have an OP encounter, and players expectations moved with, or rather gravitated to the new style. Players now play knowing the GM isn't impartial, and if something happens, the GM was ultimately culpable, the older players I've played with were usually more cautious and creative, newer players are more thematic and are more akin to actors, bolder, more brash, playing up to the GM's style. Put those new school players in a game with an old school GM and they will probably die and cry foul.
I don't mean this as an attack, but in my recollection, editions before 3.x weren't all that saintly;
* "Magic used to be fairer"; actually there were many spells that hit ridiculously hard with hardly a save allowed. Almost as if spells were used by PCs against monsters much much more than the reverse. Since 3.0 there's much more equality in the rules; the rules for NPCs and PCs work more the same now. As for caster/martial disparity, that existed then as well, but doing the math to "prove" it was much harder.
* No "Build" culture - there wasn't much to choose about building then. Not sure that's better. Also, no internet, so the Builders had to do a lot of sharing by word of mouth. It was the same in other games like Magic. There's a story about a tournament champion actually opening several boxes of Fourth Edition (waaay back) to determine if his favorite card is still in that edition. Because back then that sort of information wasn't spoiled on the internet. Sorry, but that jack isn't going back in the box.
Also, the words Munchkin, Powergamer and Rules-Lawyer predate 3.0 by many years.
Back then, there were also ideas floating around about which magic items were exceptionally good and desirable, and for whom. And there were "no-brainer" choices in CharGen too. Even in the latter 20th century people could do the math and figure out which weapons were good and why.
I have a copy of Skills and Powers, and I remember doing the math to figure out how to legally get a +15 to hit with a longbow at level 1. But that was somewhere around 1995 IIRC, and I didn't have internet so I couldn't share it with others.
I think one reason Builds are so visible is that it's possible to write down a build in a single forum post and be comprehensible. Writing down a character concept and background concise enough that other people will both read to the end and understand it, takes much more writing skill. And far fewer people care, because it's not as "useful" to them.
3.x's "rationalization" of the rules (dispose of bizzarities like THAC0) also caused more standardization, so comparing builds did become easier.
* No magic mart - not as a standard institution perhaps, but then, 3.x had plenty of limits on that too, with settlement limits and all that. But people tend to conveniently overlook that. Meanwhile, 2.5 had text in the DMG about high-avaialability of magic items as well and what the effects might be.
* pre-3.0 GMs were "impartial referees". Probably half the RPG population in any decade is under 18. You think they were all really that detached? That's not how I experienced the nineties. The reason comics like Knights of the Dinner Table were so funny was because they poked at the pretense of that impartiality.
|
|
It can't. Ever. Sorry...
I've been playing D&D since the paperbacks, and I took a hiatus right after 3rd edition came out, so I can only give you the perspective of a gamer who spent most of his time in 1st and 2nd Ed. and recently came back to Pathfinder (though back then we did play everything else we could get our hands on, from Palladium to James Bond). I think the primary difference to me is the stifling effect of the rules.
Start with skills and feats. Previously, your class gave you a handful of abilities (many of which were either combat-based bonuses or absolute things that you could perform). The rest was role-play. As the game has increased the number of abilities/skills, it has constrained characters. Now, unless it is explicitly stated in the rules, many GMs restrict you from doing it. A player spends his time scouring the rulebook for abilities and changes the way his character plays by adding predetermined abilities at level-up (what a previous poster called "building"). Rather than your character choosing to try something new or different in order to meet a new challenge (such as deciding to disarm or tackle a powerful enemy) you must be "built" to do such things from the beginning. Instead of adding options, skills and feats have actually reduced the number available to an individual character. This is part of what exacerbated the martial/caster disparity. Once you limit characters to only predefined actions based on their build, the only way to gain flexibility is through magic.
These limits increase with the switch to grid-based combat. When combat was primarily mental, the immersion was better. In addition, your options were greater when you could describe what you were trying to do tactically, rather than having to move figurines a certain number of spaces. This game has gone from being mental to being mechanical.
The final nail in the coffin is the rise of organized play. Some of the requirements of organized play, especially the magic mart and need for standardization, have changed the general expectations of the game. When I played (and this may not be a universal experience, but it was common enough from who I played with over decades of time), characters did not get to "optimize" their items. Some items could be purchased (portable holes and bags of holding were popular), but many had to be found. When an early character of mine heard about vorpal blades, we had to seek out and kill a Githyanki to actually acquire one. Instead, because of the paperwork nightmare, simply buying a desired item is the default method of acquisition in PFS (and, by extension, many home games). Magic items are commodities now. It's the difference between Diablo II and Diablo III with its auction house. If I can just go buy it, why adventure for it? I'd be better off being a banker.
I do believe that some of these changes are the result of MMORPGs, but just as many are the evolution of the game in response to desires to expand it beyond its "limits." The irony is that the "expansions" have just limited it more...
I just spent a very enjoyable weekend playing PFS for the first time. In my experience there, creative skill use is alive and well.
We played three games, and in all of them lobbying NPCs was a major part of the job. Of course Diplomacy, Bluff and Sense Motive checks were important, and PCs with good ratings in those skills got great mileage. But good player talking skills also opened up some opportunities. Particularly when someone failed an important Diplomacy/Bluff check, but then another player quickly came up with a different way to smooth-talk the NPC (clever RP), which got us a different check to salve things.
When we ran into some trouble and the not-so-lawful gunslinger's bluff attempts failed to soothe an NPCs suspicions, instead I took stage; as a paladin I was in a position to change the subject from who we were and what right we had to be there (I had kept quiet, I couldn't lie; our presence wasn't all that legal), to a topic about which I could speak the truth and be enthusiastic (the importance of our mission, in light of the Worldwound), and then use Diplomacy to good effect. The big theoretical dichotomy between player and PC social skill wasn't felt really; there was good interplay between them.
I will say that lacking some abilities does push people to work together more to figure out solutions. We played Library of the Lion, which is about a clandestine visit to a library. It obviously involves some Knowledge checks. Our party of 2 paladins, ninja without Perception, gunslinger, sorcerer and summoner, wasn't what you might call super-suave or scholarly. I think my K(History) +2 was the best stat anyone had. So we had to pull out all the stops in coordinating our efforts and harvesting advantages to succeed. The puzzles were more aimed at the players' intellect than that of the PCs (no getting past with a mere skill check) which was fortunate for us.
As for the Builder thing. I've seen a lot of people enjoying the mechanical options as a wonderful tool to turn a wacky idea into a playable character. It's kind of like having a car you like; it has to look good, have a nice color, nice seats and all (the more fluffy parts), because otherwise it'll make you unhappy to drive around in it. But the mechanics have to work as well; a car that won't move, or has horrible mileage, or won't fit all you groceries, is no fun either. People cared a great deal about both aspects. People wanted to play cool fluff and have other people notice it, but they also wanted to succeed at the mechanical challenges. And this happened as a team; we shared the feelings of triumph if we succeeded at (difficult) objectives. People cheered each others' successes.
An interesting side-effect of PFS' rules on having the rulebooks at hand for what you're playing, is that I'm now considering which abilities I want, based on the desire to keep my OOC backpack light. So can I get all the stuff I want from just 1-2 sources outside the core book? It's quite doable, because so far Paizo hasn't made the non-CRB stuff so powerful as to be practically mandatory. I think I can get by with just APG.
On the trust thing and skills: I remember when 3.0 came out, I experienced it as very empowering. To-Hit finally made sense. And there were a lot of skills that told you just how hard something was. If you got a +X to some skill, you knew "that's something I can count on, I'm good enough that it's a sure thing". I didn't have that before. I think that players feeling that they can rely on certain things could actually encourage their creativity, because they're not totally unsure if anything they want to try is even remotely likely to succeed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting discussion this has become, over the values of various systems, "kids these days", and various other things. Cant say much, I tend to believe a few things:
-We all change. This means we reinterpret some experiences, forget some and fabulate others. I tend not to rely on vague memories, especially of my youth. So be careful when trying to look back at the past, nothing was ever quite as good/bad as it seemed.
- We are not clever. None of us. Most of us are barely competent at a small subsection of human skill. So I tend to assume that stupidity is the average (for all of us), cleverness is largely random. I'm in my early twenties, and yet I'm already seeing people (MY OWN AGE) saying kids these days are dumber than they where on average (and these are fellow graduate students). This worries me, but it seems to be fairly standard. So I dont worry if I see a few folks being stupid.
-Systems come & go. I will admit, my own "dungeon world" games have required me to pull a lot more out of my ass. Then again, I was playing with people COMPLETELY UNFAMILIAR with TRPGs/video games (my little sisters and some friends). I think knowledge of any system (be it TRPG or videogames) creates expectations. I will work harder to encourage more "knowledgeable" players to be creative.
In any case, this has been an interesting thread. Relatively civil. I wont try to argue on too many things, because I aint great at creating the most cohesive arguments. Hopefully this will stay civil.
Grousing about uncreative combats then banning non-core books, to me, sounds counter-intuitive. The most powerful, smash-it-with-sticks solutions are in core. If you really want a fun campaign, try a run where the only core things you allow are classes and skills. No feats, spells or core magic items. Really shakes the game up and truly shows you what Paizo has made rather than what was around from 3.5.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I run my campaign I will probably play core book only and maybe trim races and classes. I will certainly not allow the assembly line crafting of magic items.
When I run my campaign I will probably play core book only and maybe trim races and classes. I will certainly not allow the assembly line crafting of magic items.
Me more hard core. Next campaign me use only Advanced Race Guide. Improvise all other rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I run my campaign I will probably play core book only and maybe trim races and classes. I will certainly not allow the assembly line crafting of magic items.
Of the many issues I have with modern games (D&D 3.x and later), allowing PC's to create magic items at low levels is right at the top of the list. The DM should have primary control over when and how many magic items make it into the PC's grubby little hands.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Grousing about uncreative combats then banning non-core books, to me, sounds counter-intuitive. The most powerful, smash-it-with-sticks solutions are in core. If you really want a fun campaign, try a run where the only core things you allow are classes and skills. No feats, spells or core magic items. Really shakes the game up and truly shows you what Paizo has made rather than what was around from 3.5.
It may seem that way but it is not. With every layer of rules everthing becomes more complex. Even a cursory study of human institutions will confirm this. On the other hand when RAW wasn't king and fun/immersion was people could and did play with a much more wide open improvised style. Options were there for the asking.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mentioned on another thread that 'The Beginner's Box' could be used to capture the old school feel. Ruthlessly trim rules nothing beyond the core book. Nothing but core races/classes. No rules too complex, or time consuming. Urge flexibility and speed of play. Have a dev whose only function was too keep the rules simple, easy to learn and fun.
Paizo could find an out of the way corner of Golarion no gunslingers, celestial/kobold/dragonkin players, no assembly line magical items, support the beginner box to any level. If players later decided they wanted cloud-master weredragon necrovore shadowlords they could add elements for the new stuff.
This way they get to keep the rules-heavy, complex, ever expanding system as is and could comercially produce a version that appealed to people who don't have the time, resources, or desire to learn literally thousands of pages of rules (if you count expansions and supplements).
Simply repurposing and trimming existing stuff is all that is needed to produce an old school feel Pathfinder. Win-win.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed on the win-win. My buddy used Thornkeep as his beginners area. It's somewhere in actual Golarion, but idk where and so far no real interference with the complicated stuff that we see. I really liked the simplistic approach of Thornkeep and I think that was the goal: for it to be simple but PF. I haven't actually found the MMO that it was supposed to be about, but it had that "old" magic to it, with the comforts of playing the game we all sat at the table to play. BTW it was ran by a first-time GM and newer player overall, and with using just the beginners rules, it went smoother than my games do sometimes.
Update, it's somewhere in the River Kingdoms.
Agreed on the win-win. My buddy used Thornkeep as his beginners area. It's somewhere in actual Golarion, but idk where and so far no real interference with the complicated stuff that we see. I really liked the simplistic approach of Thornkeep and I think that was the goal: for it to be simple but PF. I haven't actually found the MMO that it was supposed to be about, but it had that "old" magic to it, with the comforts of playing the game we all sat at the table to play. BTW it was ran by a first-time GM and newer player overall, and with using just the beginners rules, it went smoother than my games do sometimes.
MMO isn't out yet, I believe the Pathfinder MMO will be coming out later however. Also, keep an eye out for the Emerald Spire (I think that's the supermodule).
Agreed on the win-win. My buddy used Thornkeep as his beginners area. It's somewhere in actual Golarion, but idk where and so far no real interference with the complicated stuff that we see. I really liked the simplistic approach of Thornkeep and I think that was the goal: for it to be simple but PF. I haven't actually found the MMO that it was supposed to be about, but it had that "old" magic to it, with the comforts of playing the game we all sat at the table to play. BTW it was ran by a first-time GM and newer player overall, and with using just the beginners rules, it went smoother than my games do sometimes.MMO isn't out yet, I believe the Pathfinder MMO will be coming out later however. Also, keep an eye out for the Emerald Spire (I think that's the supermodule).
Thanks, I'll let my buddy know (as he is the one running it).
I like to know if this is correct since I will probably be GMing for my family and I want to try to keep in the spirit of roleplaying rather than be the dictator of rules.
To keep PF in the spirit of roleplaying rather than dice rolling, the GM should know all the rules (as much as possible), but not to force it down on the players to prevent creativity (or even sometimes ignoring the rules to allow freedom to experiment). It's like jazz improvisation or music composition - first you learn all the theoretical rules and then you break them - but with complete understanding why you break them. The job of the GM should be to make the RP experience as fun as possible. It seems like the Beginner Box rules could be used to play and allow the freedom of roleplaying from what I've read here.
A little back story on me:
I have never played a "real" adventure of D&D (since my parents believed it was evil), but I secretly owned and reread over and over many of the DragonLance and Forgotten Realms books (and Dark Sun and some other space adventure) and anything else I could get my hands on. I'd sneak off to the bookstore to purchase the newest issue of Dragon Magazine and immerse myself in this world. (my favorite memory is a cartoon of a wizard in a malt shop chanting "Onion ring to rule the all!" with his arm outstretched holding said onion ring.)
After over 20 years away from DL and FR (though I've continued reading every Drizzt book written and still own all my first edition DL books), I've come back to the gaming world. Maybe it's my mid-life crisis (I'm 37), but I do not want my kids to miss out on roleplaying like I did.
That being said, I've been playing the PF RotR card game with my wife - and we both throughly enjoy it, so I purchased the Beginner Box and One on One adventures and a supplement for playing GM-less called Unbound Adventures. When reading through the PFBB guides, it referred to playing new adventures/modules/scenarios with the BB rules and if there was some rule that didn't make sense because it was outside the BB rules, you are to just ignore it! I thought that was brilliant. Also, since we've enjoyed playing the RotR card game so much, I thought a great way to hook my wife into more advanced roleplaying would be to get the RotR anniversary edition and Core Rulebook and GM screen too. First we are going to go through some BB adventures first before taking on a huge adventure path like RotR.
Before purchasing I was concerned about all the rules, but heard that PF was a much better way to go rather than D&D4e (though I do have Castle Ravenloft, Wrath of Ashardalon and Legend of Drizzt board games and a couple Dungeon command games to augment the others and for all the minis).
As someone who is new to GMing and with a completely inexperienced wife to gaming, would using the BB rules be the best to go?
I also was looking into getting into the PF society and trying out some one shot scenarios, but it doesn't sound like there is a good response to it on this thread. Any thoughts?
As someone who is new to GMing and with a completely inexperienced wife to gaming, would using the BB rules be the best to go?I also was looking into getting into the PF society and trying out some one shot scenarios, but it doesn't sound like there is a good response to it on this thread. Any thoughts?
From what I've read in your post, I'd say yes, start off with the Beginner Box - even when you progress to the full game, you'll still have a flip-mat and a bunch of tokens for a decent price, and you can continue using the same rules and adding complexity from the Core Rulebook as you see fit - you don't have to "jump" straight from one to the other. For example, you can keep on running combats by the Beginner Box rules while just using the CRB to get the information needed to continue levelling up characters.
Some people will recommend going directly to the CRB, but they don't tend to take into account how daunting a book that size is to inexperienced gamers, or they assume a complex ruleset and more options than you can shake a stick at is the best possible thing for everyone. Personally, I think that's best left for people to discover for themselves.
As for Pathfinder Society... it doesn't seem like something I'd like to rely on for my weekly game, but that's just me. I'd still suggest giving it a try once you've moved onto the Core Rulebook (or even before, if they're offering any Beginners Box game sessions) to see how it goes if there's a convenient game nearby you can get into. The main thing to bear in mind is that they play a lot more rules-as-written for practical reasons.
I like to know if this is correct since I will probably be GMing for my family and I want to try to keep in the spirit of roleplaying rather than be the dictator of rules.
To keep PF in the spirit of roleplaying rather than dice rolling, the GM should know all the rules (as much as possible), but not to force it down on the players to prevent creativity (or even sometimes ignoring the rules to allow freedom to experiment). It's like jazz improvisation or music composition - first you learn all the theoretical rules and then you break them - but with complete understanding why you break them. The job of the GM should be to make the RP experience as fun as possible. It seems like the Beginner Box rules could be used to play and allow the freedom of roleplaying from what I've read here.
I actually love the immense big book of rules, but yes the beginners box is amazing as a simpler version of the rules. You could check that out and see if slaying monsters with your buddies is your bag. The approach is entirely up to you, I was running fun games way before I had a handle on the rules. All that said, I think my game has immensely benefitted from a better knowledge of the rules of the game: making fun BBEG's, crafting fun encounters, having a better handle on combat, etcetera. GMing is something you grow into, learning that big book more through experience than just a simple read-through, making mistakes, having a great time, you get better as you go along. To me the biggest pay-off is hearing players talk about their epic wins/fails, talking about things I sat at home and created for them to do, its very rewarding to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Btw +10 points for even mentioning DragonLance around me; I LOVE them so much and it was my first experience to D&D.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Excellent! Thanks for your input.
Oh, yeah, Dragonlance was it. You did cry when Sturm died right? Of course you did, we all did!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am also currently running a RotRL AE game and it is one of the very best AP's ever written; and would feel comfortable recommending it to anyone, especially someone interested in running a game for the first time as it is very iconic of what is so fun about the genre. It's very easy to run and is a great place to start. I would try to read as much rules as you can, but mainly just focus on the story. The biggest thing is to familiarize yourself with what rules are most likmely to be encountered during a session, if a bad guy has a spell, read the entry, if they have to climb, check it out (or skip it). A lot of the people talking about the daunting nature of the rules are meaning nuances or stuff that is rarely a problem, the rules IMO are very intuitive on most things, and never be shy from fudging it, just roll a dice, pretend to look at it and say "Yes".
Oddly enough, Verminaard was my favorite takeaway from DL, maybe because I love evil clerics, especially bad-touch evil clerics :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the Pathfinder system, but I hold a fear it's drifting from what made AD&D special. I've puzzled out what attracted me to AD&D in the first place (it wasn't the "to hit" system). It was the creative spirit of the game that I fear is being buried under the crush of rule after rule, and added power after power. While more rules have pros and cons (e.g. Pathfinder item creation, a pro compared to hazy AD&D rules), I want to capture the creative social spirit rather than creative mechanical effort.
I compare the RPG creative spirit to the "lunar crash exercise" many did as a kid. ** spoiler omitted **
You work as a team, you get creative. Here's the key: There was less emphasis on the mechanics and more emphasis on the creative aspect. I saw a lot of creative attempts in AD&D, not all successful, but attempted because there wasn't a rule saying you can or cannot succeed. For example ** spoiler omitted **...
I agree. You are really onto something with the point that rule design with an emphasis on complexity and builds can frustrate creativity.
For example, I've seen a new player have roleplaying explained to them. They say they get it. They join a pathfinder game, make a char they like and then they start declaring actions. Except, they can't do what they want because they don't have the right feat or class ability. Even if it is something that their class can possible do, or should be able to do, they are quite limited by what their build can do. So when situations come up where changing tactics or trying something different may help them prevail, whoops, they cannot, because they didn't build their character that way, or take the right feat that opened up a specific option. Or they can't even begin to do something because they aren't the right level yet. Thanks Obama.
With a lighter rule set, a lot more is possible. Having played AD&D back in the day I get what you mean on creativity restricted.
This is a fascinating thread and I think Touc has it totally right. Looking back on AD&D, I certainly would never go back to having to design every single magic item my PC's found. I hated the way XP was done. And I do think a grid based combat system is necessary.
All that being said, the way the players and I used to roleplay was much different back then. I do agree with Gamer-Printer's assessment that the system in and of itself should not stifle role-playing, but nowadays I feel like in my busy world of wife and kids and a big boy job, that I simply can't retain the rules like I could as a teen. My brain is too full.
There is a spirit that was somewhat lost when we moved to D20 and I lament that. Would I go back to AD&D? Absolutely not. But, this has given me a lot to think about.
** spoiler omitted **...
As a thief player, I loved how xp was done.
:P
Contrary to your extraordinarily wrong view, my issue tends to be not roleplaying during those few games or situations when it's not appropriate. My groups tend to be rather RP heavy and we'll have long periods of diceless story advancement punctuated by brief flurries of plastic-clattering terror known popularly as 'combat'.Very much this.
Some people on here seem to get the impression that optimization = constant combat. That couldn't be further from the truth in most of the campaigns I'm involved in these days. I'd say we tend to have about one-two fights per session, with the rest of the session dedicated to roleplay.
I've found the longest most exciting combats are with un-optimized character. Why? Because they simply don't blitz through everything, they really can be harmed and it takes a while to win.
So, there is a beautiful back and forth, a sense of flow of momentum and real accomplishment when it ends.
E.g. one tough but low magic fighter, alone, trying to heroically hold off a lot of zombies and close a portcullis to prevent more streaming into the city. It was a party and all the dead were invited.
They can't ignore the dead and let themselves get eaten, and they can't quickly kill all of them to get a lot of breathing room. Very tense.
I also like to set up similar things with insects pressing in. You've got a bit of time to try something before you are overwhelmed. Better fight hard!
|
|
Grousing about uncreative combats then banning non-core books, to me, sounds counter-intuitive. The most powerful, smash-it-with-sticks solutions are in core. If you really want a fun campaign, try a run where the only core things you allow are classes and skills. No feats, spells or core magic items. Really shakes the game up and truly shows you what Paizo has made rather than what was around from 3.5.It may seem that way but it is not. With every layer of rules everthing becomes more complex. Even a cursory study of human institutions will confirm this. On the other hand when RAW wasn't king and fun/immersion was people could and did play with a much more wide open improvised style. Options were there for the asking.
The term "rules lawyer" predates 3.x by decades. RAW fetishism isn't new. Some groups have always done it, and other groupds nowaday still don't do it.
However, if you're going to talk about rules with people online, or going to play with new people every week, having some common ground is really handy. Especially if you're playing under a new GM every week (PFS), you really want your abilities to do roughly the same thing every time. Personally I don't mind the lack of diversity in the rules in such situations, because you instead play with diverse other players, GMs with their own styles, and all kinds of different scenarios rather than a single-GM campaign that will often focus on a particular style. Plenty of variety for me.
PF vs Old D&D... so many threads...
In 1e/2e players took very little agency in the game, because none was given to them. You can say all you want about the PCs' role in the game but the reality was you were little more than dice rolling machines back in the day... unless you had a good DM. And what was a "good" DM? Well one of my players said I was one in college because I let him try things and make his character what he wanted.
Now, the downside for that guy is that because rules weren't standardized, when he played with another group he had a negative experience with the same character. He was able to identify me as fun and another GM as not fun because my houserules let him craft magic items, creatively use his stats for skill checks and re-flavor his spells to do what he wanted.
3x and later versions are all permutations on this very simple fact: players don't like sitting around waiting for their GM to tell them what happens.
In my current game I have 5 players; 4 of them are old schoolers who've come through all the editions of D&D. They are fine with me being the final judge in things but all five, to a man, wants to take an active role in some part of the game. Further they want to be able to calculate their measure of success; they want to know what's a sure bet, a fifty/fifty shot and a hail mary. In older editions they'd just roll and hope for the best. Now they can look at their skills, powers and items that THEY chose and make decisions, not guesses.
Now if you want to go rules-light that's fine, but please do so in a way where the players remain active creators and not just bystanders.
...and never be shy from fudging it, just roll a dice, pretend to look at it and say "Yes".
This statement basically encapsulates the "Old-School" (i.e. before D&D 3.x) style of gaming.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Grousing about uncreative combats then banning non-core books, to me, sounds counter-intuitive. The most powerful, smash-it-with-sticks solutions are in core. If you really want a fun campaign, try a run where the only core things you allow are classes and skills. No feats, spells or core magic items. Really shakes the game up and truly shows you what Paizo has made rather than what was around from 3.5.It may seem that way but it is not. With every layer of rules everthing becomes more complex. Even a cursory study of human institutions will confirm this. On the other hand when RAW wasn't king and fun/immersion was people could and did play with a much more wide open improvised style. Options were there for the asking.The term "rules lawyer" predates 3.x by decades. RAW fetishism isn't new. Some groups have always done it, and other groupds nowaday still don't do it.
However, if you're going to talk about rules with people online, or going to play with new people every week, having some common ground is really handy. Especially if you're playing under a new GM every week (PFS), you really want your abilities to do roughly the same thing every time. Personally I don't mind the lack of diversity in the rules in such situations, because you instead play with diverse other players, GMs with their own styles, and all kinds of different scenarios rather than a single-GM campaign that will often focus on a particular style. Plenty of variety for me.
You make some good points and your desire to have a RAW experience is understood and that is great for you. However, the rules creep will continue and the games will reward those with the time, resources, cash, etc. to purchase and to keep abreast of them. If you like a lack of diversity, and a rule book that is bigger than an entire sovereign nation's law code (that is not an exaggeration) then great. You'll get more of exactly that.
I am aware of the pejorative 'rules lawyer'. I have been playing the game for over thirty five years. Yes, it's great to have a common ground for discussing rules. And a smaller/easier set of rules makes the common ground larger not smaller.
Is the federal code smaller than it was just five years ago? Is it easier to understand? Does it make more sense? If you can answer 'Yes' to any of those questions you do not live in the United States. I am unaware of any country that has had a reduction in its law code.
The same principle applies here except it's a hobby. When I was a kid there was a weekly column sometimes two pages or so long in every newspaper of any size in the country. It involved a game that was already in decline but institutions die hard. The game was bridge. Strategies were endlessly discussed in the column and letters and millions of adults played it obsessively.
Now it's a bare shadow of its old self. That's where this hobby will go if it remains in the hands of the tiny number with enough time to achieve, 'system mastery'. It will fail to flourish and eventually go the way of 'bridge'.
And why in the hell does a roleplaying game need system mastery to play it well or understand it? That is like saying 'cops and robbers' needs the kids to know the advantages of a Glock over a S&W, or the exact wording of the Miranda Warnings or when and where they apply (hint: not all the time). Sorry I am getting too long.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF vs Old D&D... so many threads...
In 1e/2e players took very little agency in the game, because none was given to them. You can say all you want about the PCs' role in the game but the reality was you were little more than dice rolling machines back in the day... unless you had a good DM. And what was a "good" DM? Well one of my players said I was one in college because I let him try things and make his character what he wanted.
Now, the downside for that guy is that because rules weren't standardized, when he played with another group he had a negative experience with the same character. He was able to identify me as fun and another GM as not fun because my houserules let him craft magic items, creatively use his stats for skill checks and re-flavor his spells to do what he wanted.
3x and later versions are all permutations on this very simple fact: players don't like sitting around waiting for their GM to tell them what happens.
In my current game I have 5 players; 4 of them are old schoolers who've come through all the editions of D&D. They are fine with me being the final judge in things but all five, to a man, wants to take an active role in some part of the game. Further they want to be able to calculate their measure of success; they want to know what's a sure bet, a fifty/fifty shot and a hail mary. In older editions they'd just roll and hope for the best. Now they can look at their skills, powers and items that THEY chose and make decisions, not guesses.
Now if you want to go rules-light that's fine, but please do so in a way where the players remain active creators and not just bystanders.
No one is suggesting taking 'player agency' away from them. Making the game simpler does not do that. Recapturing the essence does require trimming some of the more egregious examples of power/item creep (I've yet to hear the term Monty Haul used on these boards so I think people simply expect there to be a metric-load of standardized magic items which is literally against the spirit of the original D&D). There is no reason Paizo couldn't do that with a beginner's set. It would make the system they use now look unnecessarily clunky/bloated but I think going from some 80 pages to literally thousands will do that to anything.
Unless a DM was railroading to fit his narrative (and that happened) I never once felt I was a bystander.
But not having AOO also puts spell casters at risk - as you can just charge right past the frontline melee guys without being slowed down and engage the casters.Removing AoO's isn't such a huge deal for 'builds.' so much as its the only way to control the field (and a valuable means of limiting opposing spellcasting.)
If you go back to the way I've seen older editions described, where the whole round is simultaneous and a character can choose to 'intercept' a moving opponent and attack him rather than just stand there looking like an imbecile as he runs past him, then that's actually an improvement over the AoO system.
Actually, Kurt isn't correct in how AD&D worked. The whole round wasnt simultaneous and a character could only 'intercept' a moving opponent and attack him is if the Initiative and Segments matched up.
This blog explain it to a degree. Mind you few used weapon speeds.
http://nagorascorner.blogspot.com/2012/05/ad-initiative-main-event.html
In actuality, how it normally worked was at the start each side announced their intentions, rolled, then the segment count down started. On your init/segment, you did your thing. In the case of spells, your "thing" took 1-9 segments, maybe even rounds.
I do like AD&D, but the init system, esp if not simplified was rather confusing.
...I also was looking into getting into the PF society and trying out some one shot scenarios, but it doesn't sound like there is a good response to it on this thread. Any thoughts?
Be careful when you rely upon negativity on a MB to influence your decisions. Any MB has a large number of people who post a lot of negative things all the time. Some of the most negative posters here don't even play Pathfinder.
Try it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Looking back on AD&D, I certainly would never go back to having to design every single magic item my PC's found. I hated the way XP was done. And I do think a grid based combat system is necessary.
All that being said, the way the players and I used to roleplay was much different back then. I do agree with Gamer-Printer's assessment that the system in and of itself should not stifle role-playing, but nowadays I feel like in my busy world of wife and kids and a big boy job, that I simply can't retain the rules like I could as a teen. My brain is too full.
There is a spirit that was somewhat lost when we moved to D20 and I lament that. Would I go back to AD&D? Absolutely not. But, this has given me a lot to think about.
** spoiler omitted **...
As a thief player, I loved how xp was done.
:P
So true. Altho I disagree with the Rogue haters around here (many of whom don;t even play rogues or even pathfinder) , even so the class certainly would be much nicer if today, as then, your rogue was 10th level while the wizard was merely 8th!
Re: Monty Haul
I suspect the demise of Monty Haul may be do to one of those new rules (or guideline really). The concept of Wealth By Level sets expectations for wealth. That may be higher than you (or I) prefer, but it also reins in the Monty Haul syndrome.
Not sure how that makes it better. Simply giving the characters the 'Monty Haul' level of magic items/money rather than them finding it in a dungeon changes the problem not at all.
DMs needed to be careful not to give too many magic items away or too powerful magic items. Now it is assumed there is an assembly line somewhere where everybody gets the same standardized magic item. There is nothing less 'magical' than a standardized magic item.
Can you imagine Sam, Merry, and Pippin at Ye Olde Outfitters in Rivendell saying, 'I'll take that masterwork sting, mithril mail shirt, phial of Galadriel, and Arwen's girdle of Chastity." Laughter, "Just kidding, no Arwen Girdle."
Of course, since today's players have come to expect something like a WoW or Skyrim experience I'm not sure you could ever change back.
|
|
You make some good points and your desire to have a RAW experience is understood and that is great for you. However, the rules creep will continue and the games will reward those with the time, resources, cash, etc. to purchase and to keep abreast of them. If you like a lack of diversity, and a rule book that is bigger than an entire sovereign nation's law code (that is not an exaggeration) then great. You'll get more of exactly that.
I am aware of the pejorative 'rules lawyer'. I have been playing the game for over thirty five years. Yes, it's great to have a common ground for discussing rules. And a smaller/easier set of rules makes the common ground larger not smaller.
Is the federal code smaller than it was just five years ago? Is it easier to understand? Does it make more sense? If you can answer 'Yes' to any of those questions you do not live in the United States. I am unaware of any country that has had a reduction in its law code.
The same principle applies here except it's a hobby. When I was a kid there was a weekly column sometimes two pages or so long in every newspaper of any size in the country. It involved a game that was already in decline but institutions die hard. The game was bridge. Strategies were endlessly discussed in the column and letters and millions of adults played it obsessively.
Now it's a bare shadow of its old self. That's where this hobby will go if it remains in the hands of the tiny number with enough time to achieve, 'system mastery'. It will fail to flourish and eventually go the way of 'bridge'.
And why in the hell does a roleplaying game need system mastery to play it well or understand it? That is like saying 'cops and robbers' needs the kids to know the advantages of a Glock over a S&W, or the exact wording of the Miranda Warnings or when and where they apply (hint: not all the time). Sorry I am getting too long.
I don't live in the US, so I can't really speak for the federal code.
As for bridge, did it die because the rules increased? I don't think they did. It's true that bridge is (AFAIK) a game that requires a great deal of strategy - not quite the same as system mastery, but close to it. But so does chess, or go; and those games are alive and well. Magic was flourishing last time I looked, despite a yearly growth in complexity that I think puts PF to "shame".
I think there are different kinds of complexity at work here that all matter. Let's call them depth-complexity and width-complexity.
Depth-complexity is the kind of stuff you have to go through regardless of what kind of character you choose to play. The grappling rules are an example of this, because it's not really up to the players whether a monster will try to grab them.
Width-complexity is about the number of different options you can choose from. As new sourcebooks give us new classes, spells and feats, this increases. But it's not mandatory. You can continue playing a wizard from the core book even after APG introduced the magus.
I think depth-complexity should be watched carefully, but then, it's not really increasing all that much. Also, the market for it isn't really great.
Width-complexity is expanding all the time; people want more options, more new things to play. But I don't think it's that problematic. Mainly because Paizo shows a lot of restraint in the power level of new stuff. It's not so grossly powerful that you have to use stuff from every new book.
You say that you need system mastery to play this game. I say: only a little bit of it. Last weekend playing PFS, there was a lot of variation in what people played, but I didn't see people struggling with a lack of system mastery. You don't need to have a flawless character, just a functional one capable of doing the stuff you enjoy. The game's balance actually works better if you don't optimize to the extreme.
|
|
...I also was looking into getting into the PF society and trying out some one shot scenarios, but it doesn't sound like there is a good response to it on this thread. Any thoughts?Be careful when you rely upon negativity on a MB to influence your decisions. Any MB has a large number of people who post a lot of negative things all the time. Some of the most negative posters here don't even play Pathfinder.
Try it.
I enjoyed it. Try it. Worst case you wasted an afternoon.
You make some good points and your desire to have a RAW experience is understood and that is great for you. However, the rules creep will continue and the games will reward those with the time, resources, cash, etc. to purchase and to keep abreast of them. If you like a lack of diversity, and a rule book that is bigger than an entire sovereign nation's law code (that is not an exaggeration) then great. You'll get more of exactly that.
I am aware of the pejorative 'rules lawyer'. I have been playing the game for over thirty five years. Yes, it's great to have a common ground for discussing rules. And a smaller/easier set of rules makes the common ground larger not smaller.
Is the federal code smaller than it was just five years ago? Is it easier to understand? Does it make more sense? If you can answer 'Yes' to any of those questions you do not live in the United States. I am unaware of any country that has had a reduction in its law code.
The same principle applies here except it's a hobby. When I was a kid there was a weekly column sometimes two pages or so long in every newspaper of any size in the country. It involved a game that was already in decline but institutions die hard. The game was bridge. Strategies were endlessly discussed in the column and letters and millions of adults played it obsessively.
Now it's a bare shadow of its old self. That's where this hobby will go if it remains in the hands of the tiny number with enough time to achieve, 'system mastery'. It will fail to flourish and eventually go the way of 'bridge'.
And why in the hell does a roleplaying game need system mastery to play it well or understand it? That is like saying 'cops and robbers' needs the kids to know the advantages of a Glock over a S&W, or the exact wording of the Miranda Warnings or when and where they apply (hint: not all the time). Sorry I am getting too long.
I don't live in the US, so I can't really speak for the federal code.
As for bridge, did it die...
No bridge continues as a musty lich of its former self. As to the other points whether it is width or depth, rules are added all the time. Extra rules must link back to new rules. Players want more 'options' because of rules and power creep. That is a feature of this current incarnation of this rule set not a bug.
Read comics, for decades nearly every hero's powers expanded. Every plot line became more convoluted and harder to follow. Each writer had to outdo the last one until they finally hit the reset button. Guess what happens within weeks sometimes days. Powers become more and more powerful again storylines resembled knotted spaghetti. Same here except there is no way Paizo is going to get back to the essence of D&D while simultaneously doing exactly what the original makers and designers warned against.
To do that they need to edit, trim, and chop back some of those options for a simpler edition. Not their main edition. That will continually add detail and rules until it crushes itself under its own weight.
And back to bridge part of what killed it as a hobby was television. Part of what killed it was that it required a 'system mastery' that makes Pathfinder look downright rules-light. You had the cards and your partner and you had to bid correctly. You had to know what and how someguy in South Africa had done ten years ago and what the guys in Texas did two weeks ago. Casual players were as cutthroat as any bank repossession officer.
The next time a roleplaying game gets published as widely as the old bridge columns will be the first. Now does the hobby have more legs than bridge?
Maybe, probably, I don't know, I was sure the hobby was circling the toilet years ago. What D&D has become is a modified 'point buy' system (even when they claim it is not). The modifications make the 'point buy' system ever more complex because each 'build' requires its own set of build specific rules and because players each want more options or to build their specific character of choice you'll wind up with more classes, races, traits, feats, skills, etc. That will continually move you away from the essence of what D&D was a roleplaying game. Where the immersion and improv interaction were the goal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why I like Dungeon World, by and large.
I get the old school AD&D feel, avoid the standardized magic item conundrum, and have lots of self-contained options for classes for people to use.
The rules are simple, but need a bit better explanation at times.
The original feel of AD&D for me came from it being the first RPG I played. It was all new. So there really isn't way of getting the new experience again when it comes to role playing.
I find the rules are just that rules. AD&D had a ton of rules as well with added book, dragon magazine and 3rd party additions though there are many more 3rd party books compatible with PF than there were with AD&D.
This is why I like Dungeon World, by and large.
I get the old school AD&D feel, avoid the standardized magic item conundrum, and have lots of self-contained options for classes for people to use.
The rules are simple, but need a bit better explanation at times.
Is Dungeon World 'supported' or do you need to DYI stuff? I love writing dungeons, worlds, campaigns, races etc. My favorite part of the game is the prep sometimes.